Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday June 29, 2009 @11:31PM
from the no-cookies-for-you dept.

fast66 writes "After hearing about Nokia-Siemens sale of Internet-monitoring software to Iran, US Senators Schumer and Graham want to bar them from receiving federal contracts. They planned the action after hearing about a joint venture of Nokia Corp. of Finland and Siemens AG of Germany that sold a sophisticated Internet-monitoring system to Iran in 2008. According to Nextgov.com, Schumer and Graham's bill would require the Obama administration to identify foreign companies that export sensitive technology to Iran and ban them from bidding on federal contracts, or renew expiring ones, unless they first stop exports to Iran."

So it's not about freedom or democracy just good old Realpolitik?
I don't hate the idea but why not let everyone decide individually if they want to boycott these companies? I'm sure Nokia does more business with consumers in the US than the government and Siemens could be hurt pretty bad if the moral outrage was strong enough.

Individuals may boycott these companies if they wish.
The bill doesn't ban them from doing business IN the United States,
It bans them from doing WITH the United States Government.

In other words, as a unit, the Government would be boycotting these companies.

I do agree with the double-standard; however, The Chinese Communist Party has been far more accepting of gradual loosening and openness than has the Iranian Mullahs. Engagement does work, if the organization you are attempting to engage with is a rational actor.

Exactly. Open trade and relations with the chinese works because their govt is corrupt because it just wants power and riches and will do whatever it can to balance the two against it's citizens whether that's another tianmen or largely letting them live their lives in peace if not actual freedom.

Iran on the other hand literally believes that god himself demands they maim and/or kill anything standing in the path of their aims of nuclear genocide and creating a wahhabist world and nothing you do or say is ever going to change that unshakeable belief that the most important thing is to kill or convert as many nonbelievers as possible.

In short you can convince someone whose a greedy asshole to give you a lightbulb so EVERYONE in the room can see. You can't convince the guy chewing on pieces of his own face in the corner not to try and rearrange your insides when the voices tell him to.

Iran wants to create a Wahabist world? Are you crazy? Who wants to create a wahabist world is the dear US ally Saudi Arabia. In a world were wahabists are strong the first victims would be the shi'a, which, as a coincidence, is the main religious group in Iran!!!

The ironic thing in the present situation of Iran is that western media is portraying the Mousavi guy as a reformer when he openly calls for returning to the teachings of Khomeini!?!. He should know about that since he was prime-minister (a position which no longer exists in Iran) in the 80's, coincidentally, when the worst attrocities of this awful regime were being committed. What were those attrocities? Murdering liberals, socialists, communists and seculars in general in their thousands all over the country, beginning in universities.

Tne funny thing is that even with such a despicable regime, Iran never invaded or bombed any other country to "the stone age" as many commentators say. On the other hand, Iran was invaded by Saddam Hussein who was doing US's bidding.

If you want to talk about crazy people hearing voices in their head, Iran appears to be the most "reasonable" place in the wretched Middle East. It is (with Israel) the only country in the region were election results even though rigged in several ways are not known in advance. Hell, it is one of the few places were there are elections!

If the US wants to "bring democracy to the middle east", it should be simple: start with US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt. At least they would certainly hear what the US has to say. But I have a feeling that isn't really the objective.

my side hurts now. Maybe these senators don't realize, but either directly or indirectly, you'd be hard pressed to find a federal contract that didn't support Siemens somehow. They're a $120 billion a year company making a gazillion little gadgets most senators never heard of, used in everthing from bulldozers to fire alarms.

The Senators don't appear to be proposing a total ban on these companies, simply a ban on them bidding for government contracts. If you want to, you can still buy their products, but I don't see a problem with a government ban. I just wish it were more evenly applied so that companies selling such technology to any regime that is going to use it to violate essential liberties is blocked from bidding on government contracts.

I think this is also because Nokia sold more than net limiting technology. Apparently they also sold devices which pick up the EMR's emitted by cell phones which allowed police to home in on any person who has a phone on their person - especially to those who are making calls/texting/transmitting data. To my knowledge such technology is not in use in China (currently).

That is bullshit [nokiasiemensnetworks.com] (forgive linking to a press release, but Nokia Siemens Networks doesn't even make equipment as described).

It looks like Nokia Siemens sold exactly the things which the USA forced them to include in their system and nothing more. Most of the legal interception requirements have been driven by the US in the first place.

I think this is also because Nokia sold more than net limiting technology. Apparently they also sold devices which pick up the EMR's emitted by cell phones which allowed police to home in on any person who has a phone on their person - especially to those who are making calls/texting/transmitting data. To my knowledge such technology is not in use in China (currently).

You are incorrect in your assumption about China. My employer sells exactly that sort of product to them.

I think this is also because Nokia sold more than net limiting technology. Apparently they also sold devices which pick up the EMR's emitted by cell phones which allowed police to home in on any person who has a phone on their person - especially to those who are making calls/texting/transmitting data. To my knowledge such technology is not in use in China (currently).

This is bog-standard technology implemented in any modern network. It's used by 911-operators to home in on your location if you are unable to speak (or cut off) and used by police to follow suspects (in addition to a GPS-Tracker in the car). There's nothing specialy made for repressive regimes; it's just technology which also may be used to suppress people.

Hm... So we, in Europe, should BAN every single US company from bidding for any government contract because US companies indirectly supported the torture in Guantanamo?
And by your logic, you should ban yourself:)

None of the politicians mentioned that this economic protectionism was religious based or had anything to do with nuclear warfare. Though China is a very dangerous military threat to India and is a police threat to its own citizens.

And from the article:

Nokia Siemens said in a statement that the equipment it provided to Telecommunications Co. of Iran, the country's fixed and mobile network operator, is designed only to conduct lawful intercept of traffic by law enforcement organizations.

Unlike in America, where the government and the phone companies can monitor all traffic without legal requirements.

So basically, this is the US trying to force foreign companies into executing the US political agenda.

Isreal in it's current form is criminal and cruel and the US did more to destabilize Iraq than Iran ever has. But of course those opinions are counter to the US world, so flag waving morons will refuse to accept them as valid.

Some senators want to punish a couple of non US companies for selling technology to a country that the US prevents it's own from selling technology to? I hope that Nokia and Siemens ignore them. It looks like another case of US selective policing, and the rest of world is sick of that shit.

I don't agree with Iranian goverment internet censorship, but not for knee jerk "they are the bad guys" reasons, because I know all to well from recent history that the USA are the badder guys. The USA has negative moral authority. Even with the new administration, you guys have a lot of work to do.

I really hope Nokia and Siemens say "shove it".

References to US and USA refer to government/politics, not necessarily you, the people.

The US isn't forcing the foreign competition to do anything. All its saying is if they want to continue to sell to Iran, the cannot sell to the US Gov't. That is all. They can, however, continue to even do business in the USA. Iran and North Korea are still the two biggest threats-- one is controlled by a crazed manic depressive dictator, and the other by a group of theocrats hell bent on creating a nuclear weapon.

Additionally, I am not saying that it was right for the US to go into Iraq in the first pla

That you say "War of Independance" was 5 nations attacking without provocation is scary. What planet in the Propaganda system is that from? Isreal's whole existence as a place for European Jews to go, even though they are not even descended from Isrealites, by force and against the will of any non Jews in the region is pretty serious provocation.

The country was started by state sponsored terrorists. It is a democracy only as much as is necessary to maintain US support, and only really for the Jews in practi

Allowing a religious extremist terrorist philosophy like zionism to succeed is always going to be a recepe for conflict.

If you're aiming for a quality flamebait, at least get your definitions right. Zionism was originally a secular ideology, and the majority still remains such. On the other hand, quite a few Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism [wikipedia.org] specifically on religious grounds.

I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that Jews must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist Zionist strains)?

What's the latest position? That Hamas must accept Isreal as a Jewish state?

Allowing a religious extremist terrorist philosophy like zionism to succeed is always going to be a recepe for conflict.
If you're aiming for a quality flamebait, at least get your definitions right. Zionism was originally a secular ideology, and the majority still remains such. On the other hand, quite a few Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism [wikipedia.org] specifically on religious grounds.
I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that Jews must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist Zionist strains)?

Zionism is its original form as formulated by Theodor Herzl was pragmatic and not at all religious as it then turned out. He thought that the solution to the persecution of Jews in Europe was to form a homeland for them somewhere in the world. The keyword is "somewhere," some of the proposed homelands where in Madagaskar, Argentina and Siberia. None of those ideas had any traction because you can't just ask a scattered people to go to some random place on earth and start a new land. The idea is laughable.

More Russians died in gas chambers than Jews, but Isreal and supporters bang on about it as if the Jews were the only victims. Sure Isreal isn't rounding them up and gassing them, but I would pick life in a ghetto as Jew before the gas chambers over life in Gaza as a Palestinian.

The first statement isn't true, and I doubt you even mean the second. Russians had very high war casualties and many died in camps (including Jewish Russians), but they weren't tortured and executed by their own societies like animals. Palestinians are mistreated, but they aren't dropping dead in the streets from starvation and disease, and it is not yet considered socially acceptable to kill them at will.

- Google buying out California after the latter going bankrupt; and also Texas filing their 5th petition to be purchased again, which was predictably turned down by Their Imperial Majesties Sergey I and Lawrence I

- President of the Persian Democratic Republic of Iran proposing stronger economic sanctions against the Emirate of the British Isles and Northern Europe, after the latter executed another three juvenile offenders for adultery by stoning.

Is it really such simple hypocrisy? I know that hypocrisy is the universal language of politicians, but weren't there were hearings on the matter of Cisco selling tools of oppression to China? I recall that documents were presented at the hearings showing that those tools weren't just marketed as simple tools but specifically as a means to help the government to oppress the people.

Ah yes, just entering "cisco china hearings" net this as the top item:

I think it's worth asking: should a corporation be held responsible for the way its products are used? You could argue that the individual is the one who should be held responsible. An individual can pick up a scalpel and use it to perform a lifesaving surgery, or slit someone's throat. The individual can take that laptop and either write poetry or hate speech. Obviously you have to have limits; I don't think any reasonable person could hold a company that makes box cutters responsible for 9/11. They had a

This is just more bullshit for the U.S. government to work around trade agreements they've signed in the past.

What trade agreements? The US was given China temporary Most Favored Trade Status 1990 and made permanent in 2001 during the Bush Administration. Conversely, the US maintains trade sanctions against Iran and does not even have diplomatic relations with Iran and has not since 1980. So I ask again, what trade agreements?

Legally, sure. It's simple to create laws to justify or prohibit anything. Legally, a torturer who works for the CIA is a upstanding patriotic citizen, while a torturer who works for Al Quaida is a terrorist and should be killed. Legally, when China executes people to harvest organs, it's unfortunate, while when Germany killed people doing medical experiments on them, it was a crime agains

IF they could have, they would have. Obama's ratings in Europe were in the 90% range, at the same time he was in Ohio talking about how he was going to undo free trade. Says a lot about how informed Europeans -really- are.

Bush may not have been the style of guy that Europe prefers, but economically, his commitment to free trade made it possible for many European economies to be export driven. Obama will begin the unwinding of that.

Unless you're in Iran in which case it's the other way around. Or since neither of these companies are US based companies do we have to decide if the EU likes the US today before they can negotiate contracts?

Where's the blockage of federal contracts to AT&T for spying on American citizens? U.S. officials have a complete lack of self-awareness [salon.com] on issues like spying, detention & torture:

"I have more than two hours of video footage showing Sheikh Issa's involvement in the torture of more than 25 people," wrote Texas-based lawyer Anthony Buzbee in a letter obtained by the Observer.

The news of more torture videos involving Issa is another huge blow to the international image of the UAE . . . . The fresh revelations about Issa's actions will add further doubt to a pending nuclear energy deal between the UAE and the US. The deal, signed in the final days of George W Bush, is seen as vital for the UAE. It will see the US share nuclear energy expertise, fuel and technology in return for a promise to abide by non-proliferation agreements. But the deal needs to be recertified by the Obama administration and there is growing outrage in America over the tapes. Congressman James McGovern, a senior Democrat, has demanded that Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, investigate the matter and find out why US officials initially appeared to play down its significance.

As stated in the linked article:
- It's a piece of standard 3GPP (=GSM) equipment for lawful intercept, i.e. to allow law enforcement to wiretap calls (according guidelines set by local law).
- It only handles voice calls and does not allow internet traffic monitoring, let alone deep packet inspection.
- The equipment is compliant with EU and UN export regulations

Also, it's much less of a privacy threat than the mechanisms currently in place in US, UK (and I'm sure EU).

As far as I'm concerned, multinational corporations deserve this and have done so for a long time.

They are crying foul that by selling the tools of oppression to one government, they jeopardize their chances to sell their wares to another.

That's not hypocrisy on behalf of the governments. That's just politics.

And they do have a choice to avoid this - by staying out of that market.

No one forced them to sell systems to allow oppressive regimes to track and crack down on dissidents. They came up with that product all by themselves. And they most certainly would have been aware of what their product was going to be used for.

If all they sold was phones and phone systems, they wouldn't be in this mess, so I really don't see a problem with the US Government deciding that if Nokia supports it's political enemies, that it shouldn't benefit from US government contracts.

Corporate pariahs's deserve to be treated as such.

I don't like what the US government is doing itself in the area of human rights abuse, but I have to admit that I support it on this matter.

What about selling to non-oppressive regimes? These systems, and similar ones by Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, Narus [wikipedia.org] and others are in widespread use throughout the U.S., Europe and the rest of the "free world".

Been there, installed that.

Hell, I know of one system that uses a MySQL database to store the warrant and tap info. The interface is an Apache module. The front end is rather ugly closed source GUI written in Israel which sends the info via an HTTPS POST.

Narus' key products were based on Snort and Wireshark, just on custom super-computer class hardware.

Gotta love FOSS. With all the hacking tools available for Linux/BSD, including source code, who needs custom code?

Not really. These tools are designed to ensure privacy and you'd be hard pressed to find a use for them to "suppress" a people.

There are a lot of tools designed to test -- and break -- security. They have tons of valid uses. The idea that countries like Iran, Burma and China can't get their hands on the same tools the U.S. and Western nations use for "legitimate law enforcement" simply because Congress says "don't sell to the bad guys" is laughable. It assumes no nation in the world is going to resell t

Actually, they do have to provide this technology if they want to sell mobile phone network equipment at all. There's a mandatory "lawful intercept" capability that you have to implement if you want to get the gear licensed. That goes for US, UK and EU as well as "axis of evil" countries.

However it's one thing to meet this requirement within the required laws of the host country and another thing entirely to provide and market software and devices that actively enhance human rights abuse through these laws.

The latter might be something the "client" government desires, but that doesn't excuse the actions of the corporations who chase this business through provision of such systems.

Those actions turn the US into a less competitive country and will not stop people from having cell phones, software, etc wherever they live. I don't think Nokia cares very much about federal contracts right now.

So, now that we here in Germany have introduced Internet censorship (via the crazy Zensursula von der Leyen law, your choice whether "crazy" applies to the law or the person) - will the US senators punish the companies that supply the infrastructure for that as well?

Oh wait, Germany isn't a "rogue country", right? We don't go by facts, we go by political climate, don't we?

Usually the U.S.A. only decides to use economic sanctions when censorship is being used for I(negative) political purposes.

They use sanctions to try and obtain the political result they want.. For example trying to stop nuclear research.. Censorship, like it or not, is each countries own business.. and in fact you can say the same for the individual states in the US..

You know what is strange ?.. There are people (not saying you, so don't freak), that on the one hand want everyone to be the same and live t

It wouldn't hurt my feelings to punish companies that sell products that are specifically designed to oppress nations, but we also need to punish American companies that do that. Including censoring information, and disclosing information to help those regimes violate rights.

America needs to decide a)Iran is a horrible regime and should be treated as such, which included cutting off any business or country that profits by selling to it, or b) leave them alone.
This is all wishy-washy jerking off after the fact. None of this tech is classified or sensitive, so you can't say they were selling them weapons grade material or something. You can't punish a corporation after the fact when the did not break a single international law.
These spineless half measures reek of hypocrisy

what about the scores of US companies that have sold and are selling weapons to Iran, to other hostile, dictatorial and oppressive regimes and to third world counties. WTF! In my book that is much worse than what Siemens and Nokia did. Oh, but these are not US companies.... so that makes it alright then. Hypocrits.

For those not wanting to bother, it's the part about beams in your eye and splinters in that of another one.

Hey, I just want to give them something they can understand, considering how many politicians ride on God and his will into the house, I'd say they should know the good book, eh?

OK, snideness aside. Do you think this is about "freedom of speech" or similar bullcrap? It's about power. It's the attempt to dictate to foreign companies what they may or may not sell. Neither Siemens nor Nokia is a US company. It's simply an attempt to find out whether those companies rely heavily enough on US government contracts to actually bend over to US government's will.

And that's the shameful part. IF it was about free speech, I'd be very happy for such a bold and outright good move. Similar actions taken in the US lead me to the conclusion that this is not the case. Else, why care for the splinter in someone else's eye?

Most of our current presumed enemies were either armed by the Soviets and Chinese (North Korea), or developed their own military industries by initially illegally copying from the Soviets and/or the US (China, Iran). Venezuela is modernizing using largely Russian technology, and has been trying to figure out how to get rid of its F-16s to US enemies without violating transfer agreements. Most of the rest (primarily terrorist or insurgent groups) use weapons that are either stolen from wherever they can fi

Senators want to punish Iran for placing fetters on freedom of speech and democracy? First do something about the NSA running around like the Stasi, the FBI running around like the Gestapo and the TSA from running around like nosy nannies with clubs. Then sort out the "Free Speech Zone" debacle. Then sort out the PATRIOT Act. Then sort out the US government's working on ACTA treaties that are secret.

Maybe then they can get all high-horsey about freedom in other parts of the world. Until then, calling Iran "unfree" is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I think what's annoying is just the stupid grandstanding. They are fine with the EXACT same usage in the US, as the gov't now can arbitrarily declare anybody an enemy combatant, arrest them, hold them indefinitely without charge, and even then transport them out of the country. It's not like congress was briefed on the NSA wiretapping and did something about it. And it's not like ALL internet traffic goes through the NSA's computers (now, whether they can actually do DPI on it all in realtime...).

But, when the people we have hired to watch our police forces don't bother doing it (I mean really, the FBI doesn't know how many NSL's they have issued OR where all of them went to HAS to be willful incompetence after this many years), and we keep re-hiring them, it's really our problem. We know there's a problem, but not enough people are willing to get together to be able to fix it.

We know there's a problem, but not enough people are willing to get together to be able to fix it.

That's because it doesn't seem to affect their daily routines.

The main issue is not always whether the current executive powers are trustworthy. It is about putting in place mechanisms that would allow future (would be) dictators to take tight control. Even failed attempts can have nasty effects.

Yesterday I watched an interview [bbc.co.uk]with the former head of the British counter terrorism operations. They see the immediate threat, but not the side effects of eroding democratic liberties. Scary. Probably with all the best intentions. Very scary.

Many in the USA subscribe to a theory of American exceptionalism. They do this consciously or unconsciously. The theory is pretty simple: when America does something, it's OK. This is in line with "If the President does it, then it's not illegal." So when Americans are waterboarded, it's torture and a war crime. When the same thing is done by Americans, it's part of the war on terror, and a policy issue that shouldn't be criminalized. Sure, the participants and those authorizing the harsh interrogation techniques (euphemism has risen to new heights these days) circumvented legal frameworks, but they're not criminals no matter what they did. We need to look forward, not backward.

Many in the USA subscribe to a theory of American exceptionalism.... The theory is pretty simple: when America does something, it's OK....

That is not what American Exceptionalism is about. "American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States occupies a special niche among developed nations in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions and unique origins." - American Exceptionalism [wikipedia.org].

The idea of Nixon-style exceptionalism (a priori exceptionalism as discussed in the Wikipedia entry) is held only by a few, and often thrown out as a strawman, like you just did. You can disagree with the notion all you like, just don't distort the expressed views of those who do.

Condemnation of Iran's actions and punishment of Nokia and Siemens for sanction violations makes sense. Iran is using this technology to directly curb free expression. None of the U.S. government entities mentioned in this discussion do that. They may listen in, but they aren't turning around and cracking skulls as a follow up. Saying that the NSA and FBI are somehow equivalent to Iran's government and militia is ridiculous.

Americans get waterboarded more often by other American soldiers as part of their training regimen. Is that torture? Should their instructors be thrown into jail for giving them this training? There was no circumvention of legal frameworks, the three people who were waterboarded were done so within the framework of the law. Change the laws, but don't be dishonest about the ones we have. (And no, I'm not claiming the waterboarding was "right" because we did it.) Also, remember that the treatment American soldiers and civilians already get from the enemy includes real torture (stabbing, cutting, twisting limbs until dislocation or until they break, and beheading).

I can't see how you could be wrong. Cisco, Juniper, Microsoft, Google, and every high tech US company have been selling exactly the same thing to China for years. Why punish NSN for doing exactly the same thing in Iran? Because US companies lost the deal? I hope this is not the case and these Senators really have the interest of the Iranians at heart.

Until then, calling Iran "unfree" is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, I remember when people went out to protest and were hacked to death by axes, wielded by the National Guard. It was horrible.

I would say that it's more like someone going into an emergency room with a paper cut and whining about how someone who has just been raped, thrown out of a car at 55mph, run over, lit on fire, then hacked up with machetes is getting treated first.

Nokia Siemens is a joint venture with its headquarters in Finland. The two contributing companies are Nokia, who were founded and are headed in Finland and Siemens were founded and are headed in Germany. The United States of America set an embargo on the country and yet all others are expected to follow - this is what's wrong with the American outlook.

I'm just glad I've been able to buy Cuban cigars legally in my country all along.

Treated differently depending on whether or not they do follow? Yes, that's pretty much the definition of "embargo".

If the US were threatening to prosecute the company or its principals for daring to break the embargo, then you might have a point. That's a very different thing from saying "ok, if you won't honor our refusal to do business with Iran, then we also won't do business with you".

You're basically saying that the US is somehow obligated to provide postiive support (in th

For once (and I'm not American), I find this response from the USA government very reasonable. They are not barring Nokia to do business with companies on the USA. They are not prosecuting them. They are just saying: "if you want to do business with ME, you have to play by my rules".

Even if all the other points raised here are valid (things the USA do etc), the response itself is a different matter.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 and though Iran is now using their filters to essentially stop all outward communication, I'm sure that was not the initial sell to Nokia. There are a number of countries that heavily filter Internet traffic that the US deals with (eg. China and Saudi Arabia). Even in the States, Australia and the UK, such measures have been proposed as an attempt to "protect the children." Now that the shit has hit the fan in Iran, its all of a sudden a super bad thing and "someone must

Unfortunately, the embargo does not cover that. European companies like Nokia and Siemens are bound by Council Regulation 423/2007, which forbids the export of the following things:
- Military goods of any kind
- Services relating to maintenance, preparation, production or use of military goods
- Just about anything related to nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles

I just read through the damn thing (151 pages in the German version) and software is only covered where it is used for the design, operation or maintenance of nuclear enrichment facilities or military weapons, especially guided missiles. Unless I overlooked something (unlikely as the appendices are simple tables) or the embargo is covered by an additional regulation I am not aware of Nokia and Siemens did not violate the embargo.

The morality of providing filtering technology to Iran aside, I just can't see what the States are trying to accomplish here. They try to punish companies from other countries for something that wasn't illegal at the time. In the best case we have an ex post facto situation with jurisdictional issues, in the worst case we have "screw the rules, we want your money".

There is a possibility that they might be a competitive supplier to a company that has offered financial support to a senator/s for a lucrative tender, and that this is a mechanism to remove them from being able to tender. Of course, I may be totally off the mark, but following the money, this does seem possible.

Oh? I missed the news then. When did the US annexed Germany and Finland?They didn't that's why the action is hey we won't be buying your shit rather than, hey we're fining the fuck out of you. Really, this is such a non-story. During economic crisis, country uses fuzzy logic to exclude foreign manufacture over domestic one. Fire still hot, water still wet. Just wait for the appearance of the Blue Eagle [wikipedia.org] before you start getting too indignant.

My point is you can't break an embargo if you do not fall under the jurisdiction that called for it.

And what you're failing to notice is that this is a non-point.

While they did not technically do anything wrong, they still pissed off the people with the purse strings.

Were they morally wrong? Probably, but business is business. Ethically, they're in the clear.

Does this mean the Senate is forced to look favorably on it? Of course not. They still have power over their own budget rules whether the companies at hand are Swiss, German, South African, or even American. THAT is the part you're failing to gra

You know, it wasn't tanks and bombers that brought down the Iron Curtain. It was blue jeans and rock'n'roll. Western consumer society may be easy to sneer at, but in the long run it's proven to be one of the most powerful forces for liberalization the world has ever known.

As a practical matter, if we try to cut off exports to Iran, I guaran-goddamn-tee you the Iranian government will still get its hands on all the goodies it needs, but the Iranian people will be SOL, and any chance they have of freeing th

Uh no, it wasn't blue jeans and Beatles tapes, it was the United States bankrupting the USSR. Containment was an incredibly expensive policy for the West, but in the end, the USSR could not compete, and we sure the hell weren't exporting advanced electronics to them (though they ripped plenty off).